In a posting I titled Critical Claptrap which I published on 6th September 2015 I set out verbatim the rubbish that you get sent when you write a blog. Everybody is allowed to comment on what I say, but to comment abusively and anonymously is rather outside the Pale don’t you think? Well this wise guy who must be my biggest fan has come up with more of the same. He must have read every posting I have made and there are nearly 450 of them and extracted bits out of each one and taken them out of context, to write what he does. Here is his latest. I publish it verbatim because I cannot really see his point. Why should somebody waste his time writing claptrap although I have to say it is reasonably well written.
In your pathetic self-serving excuses and lies for the abject failure of “your campaign” you have once again abused the memory of a decent man, Mike Sheehan, the alleged raison d’etre for your activities over the past 6 years. In my opinion, since leaving Bede’s you were never close to Mike, had you actually known him well, you would know why he hated to be called Michael, yet in your ignorance you blithely refer to him as your friend Michael. From my knowledge of the man, I do not believe that he ever made any detailed complaints or allegations of abuse to you. His death provided the perfect unquestionable cover for a manipulative abusive personality like you to present your imagined account of what might have happened as facts.
After a lifetime of your own abusive relationships, for the past six years you have followed in the footsteps of your mentor, Duggan, abusing the weak, defenceless, the dead and the powerless in the per-pubescent, upper-third form smut, in which you are developmentally marooned. Like your fellow bully Duggan, you carefully avoid abusing people and professions who might challenge you personally and call you to account and in this respect, until recently, perhaps your reputation as an offensive but pathetic madman served you well. As soon as you are challenged directly, the bluster and vitriolic abuse ceases as in your well practiced manner, you scurry for cover and anonymity, putting as much distance as possible between yourself and those who are prepared to take you on, legally and financially.
Having spent six years encouraging and persuading vulnerable former pupils who may well have been abused in the past to follow you in what you claim, was clearly your campaign, the case collapses and your obfuscation, lies and deceit flow as fully and easily as the swollen Boyle River passes by your house. Some of those abused, elderly and often chronically ill men have been further traumatised by you and your pathetic, damning and entirely counter-productive, self-appointed advocacy on their behalf. Your feigned concern for them is just that, feigned, as you will now know from your research, your psychopathic personality precludes the ability to experience genuine empathy for others.
“Your campaign” was never about Mike Sheehan, Bede’s, Duggan, abuse or the abused, they were merely the conduits for you to use and manipulate. The “campaign” was entirely about you. and the ruthless self-promotion of a lifelong failure, who wanted to be a somebody, to be respected and revered. Your latest experience in failure is yet again somebody else’s fault, a necessary pre-requisite of maintaining your deluded view of yourself.
Contrary to the image of the fearless advocate and campaigner you have claimed to be, in your normally care-free and abusive blog, you suddenly introduced a personal apology to a group of solicitors. An apology from you! Yet where was the explanation for that transformation, surely you were not being evasive or economical with the facts?
Your elaborate deceit in claiming to be looking for accommodation in London to watch the High Court proceedings, when you already knew that the case was to be abandoned and the reasons for that abandonment, is a damning indictment of your dishonesty. You knew Counsel’s opinion on the fragility of the case, the almost certain outcome if it went to Court and your personal responsibility for destroying whatever case might have been presented. Were your readers really expected to believe that the self-appointed founder, leader, and propagandist of your campaign would be a mere observer of events in the High Court? Would Counsel for the Diocese, really have ignored the opportunity to put you on the witness stand, utterly destroying your credibility and by association, any plaintiffs who had been encouraged or advised by you?
Your latest effort to portray yourself, as a poor pensioner, reliant on a British state pension fools nobody but yourself. Litigants have already identified some of your hidden funds and trusts and in this respect have had direct assistance from the people and organisations you were so keen to avoid prior to your hasty flight to the West of Ireland. In the circumstances and given your personality and behaviour to date, you will do everything necessary to avoid any possibility of ending up in Court facing libel or slander charges, for which you would be held personally and financially liable.
You mention one last Lash, a final drinking session, and like millions of other alcoholics your written account of your temperance and good intentions fools nobody. Like your personality disorder alcohol dependence is part of your condition, it has been with you for almost 50 years and will remain with you for the rest of your life. The Doctors have already made you aware of the inevitable consequences of your addiction, but the die is cast. Perhaps, like Mike, much as you might have wanted to beat the addiction, I’m not sure you ever had the determination or personality to succeed. Why not just accept who and what you are?
Your wider family like your former customers, employees and the neighbours from Clifton Road and Longsight know what you are really like, and many of the bridges between you and them have long since disappeared. Now in your hideaway in Boyle the same suspicions and rejections are evident, perhaps the kindest description I heard of you came from an elderly and char5itable female neighbour, “he’s a gurrier”. Unlike the Greater Manchester area, Boyle, Roscommon and the West of Ireland is a much smaller community and seemingly unknown to you, people there have “copped on” to the real Paul Malpas.
In one respect you have been exceptionally lucky in having a wife who has stood by and defended you through all the years of problems and conflicts which you have created, she is indeed your rock and the anchor which has somehow saved you from the consequences of the many impulsive and self-centred adventures and campaigns you would have otherwise embarked on. Consider for a moment if you can how you would cope and how long you would last in the absence of Helen?
The recent lull in your blog, though entirely expected in the circumstances is welcome and hopefully will continue. I had wondered if you had run off with the circus when it was in town, a change of name, new identity and an erasure of the past would be attractive to you, but perhaps the explanation is simple, in that finally, you have been confronted and shown to be so profoundly damaged and damaging.
Hopefully Mike Sheehan can now rest in peace, the memory of him, left with family and friends, no longer manipulated and abused by you.
Well that letter posted in Central Manchester could be said to be a complete character assassination of poor old me if it were true. Posted to my home address but with no name of sender, complete anonymity and I take exception to that when in the second paragraph it says that I “scurry for cover and anonymity”. With everything I write I am never afraid of putting my name to it unlike the bullying writer of the piece and that is the big problem nowadays. Whenever somebody stands up and points the accusing finger at some institution or practice, there is always some bully ready to beat that person down and that kind of bullying is normally of institutional origin.
Take for example the bullying going on around socialist politicians and antisemitism that we have seen for the last few weeks. Given that the word semite now no longer refers to people speaking a semitic language ie hebrew or arabic, an anti -Semite has morphed into a person who does not like Jews. Now I know I am not the sharpest knife in the box, but why is it abominable to be prejudiced against the Jews but you can be anti-Palestinian, anti- North Korean, anti- American, anti-Irish, anti-Chinese, anti-British even. In fact in some countries you can be jailed for being anti-Semitic. Certainly you could easily lose your job looking at the numbers of socialist politicians who have been shown the door these days. That nutter Ken Livingstone was ejected from the Labour Party because he said Hitler had an agreement with the Jews in the 1930s. That remark even when it is undeniably and historically true was classed as anti-Semitic. The statement made some time ago now by Naz Shah, MP for Bradford and said with tongue definitely in cheek that the best place for Jews would be in the middle of America was also classed as anti-Semitic and she was divested of Party.
This makes me think that that which is classed as anti-Semite is organised institutional bullying. Because the Jews or really in this instance the Zionists own 95% of the media, it is easy for them to lead a campaign of this nature and it was clever of the media to bring this debate up just before the local council elections. The media helped to a great extent by the Tories and the Socialist MPs who came from Blairism and not Corbynism have created this recent elephant in the room. Someone please tell me why you can be prejudiced against virtually anything and anybody but you cannot be prejudiced against a Jew. To be an anti-Semite is to end your grip on life and everybody accepts that without consideration. The world is fucking barmy.
10 thoughts on “Bullies Both Local And International”
As hard as the Law Society has tried, you cannot change the meanings of words.
Anti-semitism is to be in opposition to the children of Shem, son of Noah. The jews are children of Japheth or to be more precise, Yids. The yids have declared war on the children of Shem so the accusation of anti-semitism can only be levelled at the yids. By accusing everyone else of anti-semitism, they are projecting!
When people talk shit, it is best to ignore them and anyone who pays attention to the paedophile ring that is government and the media will only end up becoming a paedophile.
Definitely worth noting that the talmud openly encourages the raping of children. Type in “3 years and a day” to any internet based search engine and discover the book of Babylon. This may help to understand why i openly mock anyone who tries to defend this horrific tribe.
Livingston was guilty of being imprecise about the history. There has been a local “blowback”in the local elections in Prestwich in that Labour (of whatever strain) lost to the vermin Quislings (LibDem) on a 30% turnout. Election to a local authority seems to be a pension plan for timeservers and carpetbaggers.
Yes, Mr Lefley, my local councillor, Paddy Hennegan (possibly not of Jewish descent?) lost his seat to a certain Mr Steven Wright last Thursday and Labour contrived to lose a further two to the Tories on Bury Council. Thanks a bunch, Ken.
Back to our erstwhile complainant regarding the claim for abuse against Bede’s.
Never once, in this man’s diatribe, does he go anywhere near condemning Bede’s for their stance here. An institution which had at least three paedophiles operating in the 1950s to early 1960s (now all deceased and beyond any sort of justice). Just to prove it wasn’t a fluke, along came Billy Green in the 1970s to continue the abuse.
At least justice caught up with him, he was jailed for six years, released after three. No doubt, as nature abhors a vacuum, it would be interesting to know what happened in the period between Duggan leaving (1966) and Billy Green arriving (circa 1973).
It would seem highly unlikely that Bede’s was completely nonce-free during those intervening seven years, five of which I was resident at the Alma Mater. There is a possibility that yet more dog collar wearers, some of whom may still be with us, have got off scot-free again.
I sincerely hope Billy Green’s victims got a decent pay-off, knowing lawyers, I doubt this was the case. It looks like the insurers here, on the plaintiff’s side, got cold feet and pulled the plug, I wouldn’t read anything more into it than that.
I was involved in a personal injury case over 20 years ago, I saw first hand how the legal system operated. I could easily have been killed during the accident and spent two months off work as a result. The compo I was going to receive, according to my solicitors, was going to be Mega.
The amount I eventually received was under £10K, as the danger of going to court and winning an award less than offered out of court could have resulted in me having to pay the court costs of both sides. So much for the legal system and justice, eh?
To Paul Taylor- An ironic twist is that our local Blairite M.P.-Ivan Lewis- is very twitchy about Israel,ant-Semitism and Zionism.Ivan is the living proof of the “Peter Principle”.Mediocrity raised to an artform-a Nu-Labor p.lc. bagcarrier!
To Brian Lefley
I only know him slightly, when we had had trouble regarding some land at the back of our and nearby houses, he did come down and contact the council regarding the matter.
I can’t really comment on him beyond that.
I have thought long and hard about responding to the anonymous commentator remarks to Paul. I feel very upset and angry as he ( she?) seems to suggest that we were stupid enough to be led by the nose to start the process of holding the church to task for the abuse suffered at Bede’s. Speaking for myself I considered the prospects of reliving the abuse in front of strangers and holding myself up to ridicule and disbelief. After a great deal of mind searching and with the support of family and friends I decided to proceed. Not once did I feel pressurerised by Paul or,once I met them, the lawyers to take the case to court. I made the decision knowing the possible consequences of the case collapsing and to suggest I did this by persuasion of somebody, whom at that stage I had not even met, I find insulting in the extreme. As people have said on this blog time and again to hide behind anonymity is cowardly and, to me, show that the commentator knows their points are week and fallacious.
To Mike Lomax
The fact that anybody would wish to remain anonymous in their posting such statements would indicate cowardice of the first order.
You, on the other hand, were willing to go to court and put your side of the story on record, at the risk of being subjected to verbal bullying by the defence counsel.
To me, that shows you have considerably more backbone than the spineless bastard who makes unsubstantiated claims and hides behind his anonymity.
If I were Paul, I wouldn’t even read the next letter with a Central Manchester postmark, I’d put it straight in the bin, where it belongs.
I have to respond to the remarks from this anonymous gentleman (if ‘gentleman’ is the right word for him).
First, a real man would put his name to what he writes. If he is not willing to do that, he should keep his mouth shut.
Second, if he is going to make personal attacks on anyone, he should limit them to reasonable remarks, politely expressed. If he were to say that Paul’s personality is sometimes “difficult”, or words of that sort, some of us might agree with him, and the rest of us would at least consider that he was entitled to his opinion. To go further than that is neither necessary nor desirable.
I don’t care about Paul’s personality. If it is true that he can be difficult, or stubborn, or sometimes unreasonable, so what? It is difficult, stubborn, unreasonable people who make the world change. We need a few more of them.
A regards the collapse of the case, I would ask Mr. Anonymous how much effort he himself has ever put into trying to fight the system to make the world a better place. Paul made a valiant attempt. Success was never guaranteed, and it is not Paul’s fault that the system won this time.
On the plus side, Paul has opened many people’s eyes, including mine, to the reality of what happened at St. Bede’s in the 1950s and early 1960s. Paul’s persistence gradually changed my attitude from one of deep scepticism to certainty that a substantial amount of serious abuse had taken place – and I am not the easiest person on the planet to persuade. I don’t care very much whether Paul managed to get every last detail right, or what the precise facts are concerning Mr. Sheehan; the overall picture is clear enough.
I know what trying to fight the system is like: I have been forced to do it for a lifetime. It is hard work. It wears you out. It probably shortens your life. Paul has put himself through all that, not for his own benefit, but to help other people. He had no idea, when he started his blog, that this issue was going to cross his path, but when it did he didn’t ignore it or run away from it; he did what he could. He didn’t go looking for this issue; this issue found him.
If my post sounds angry, that is because I am. Mr. Anonymous can add me to the list of people he has annoyed.
Wow, how awful. Who would write something like that, so bitter and angry. With that level of detail sounds like an insider, from Diocese of Salford’s machinery or such perhaps. I am a spectator following the blog from afar and we have seen pauls tireless search for justice because what happened to those guys was very wrng. he was trying to help out of the kindness of his heart. he invested time money and effort into it. there was never any sign he was in it for self promotion.
Well thank you kindly Janice, words of kindness like yours go a long way to heal the damage caused by Mr Anonymous. I hope you continue to read the blog that is if I can continue to think of subjects to write about. The Bede’s situation has knocked the wind out of my sails somewhat. However hopefully the muse will return.